چکیده:
Islamic jurists, both Sunni and Shia, agree on the impediment of intentional killing to inheritance; however, regarding the impediment of accidental killing, diverse views have always been presented among jurists, which mainly stem from the conflict of narrations in this field; such that some jurists consider the accidental killer absolutely deprived of all the deceased's assets and even the blood money (diya) of the decedent. In contrast, others, contrary to the first view, believe that the accidental killer absolutely inherits from all the decedent's assets and even from his blood money; a third view, by adopting the theory of distinction (tafsil), believes that accidental killing only prevents inheriting the blood money resulting from the killing, but does not create an impediment to inheriting the rest of the assets. In this article, the aforementioned three views and their supporting arguments are critiqued, and while rejecting the first and second views, the theory of distinction, which is more consistent with the principles and rules governing Islamic criminal law, is strengthened and accepted.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In critiquing the evidence of this view, it must be said that: first - the generalities of the narrations that this group has relied upon have been specified by narrations that do not consider the accidental killer deprived of the estate (Mustanad al-Shia / 48 / 19); second - this narration is weak and mursal, and consequently, it is unreliable; third - due to its conflict with the good and authentic hadiths narrated from the Imams of the Shia, it is stripped of its validity; fourth - since the aforementioned narrations are in agreement with the opinions of the general jurists, they must be interpreted as taqiyya (bulghat al-faqih / 4 / 253), as Sheikh Tusi in Tahdhib and Istibsar, and Sayyid Murtada in Intisar have done (Riyadh al-Masail / 340 / 2), and consequently, one refrains from accepting the ruling contained therein; however, Sheikh Tusi in the book al-Nihayah has explicitly stated the anomalous nature of the aforementioned narration and consequently, not acting upon it (al-Nihayah / 672).
2-3- Third View: Distinction between blood money and other assets 2-3-1- Examination of the jurists' views Almost all Imami jurists believe that an accidental killer does not inherit only from the blood money paid due to the killing, but benefits from the rest of the estate; this theory is the well-known view of Imami jurists (Al-Nihayah /672; Al-Muhadhdhab /162/2; Al-Intisar /307; Al-Kafi fi al-Fiqh /375; Al-Wasilah /396; Al-Sara'ir /274/3; Ghunyat al-Nuzu' /330; Isbah al-Shia /371; Irshad al-Adhhan /128/2; Idah al-Fawa'id /179/4; Qawa'id al-Ahkam /346/3), as it can be observed that many great figures of Imami jurisprudence such as Sayyid Murtada, Ibn Junayd, Sheikh Tusi, and Allamah Hilli have adopted the third view.
(
, 
, 
)
